= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on The Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (267)
Not treating starvation as important will lead to the 1920's person repeatedly doing such things until he gets unlucky, at which point he'll starve and he'll have selected himself out of existence. You can't just say that people will ignore deferred gratification under circumstances where ignoring deferred gratification will lead to not surviving--natural selection will ensure that the only ones remaining are the ones who don't ignore it.
Furthermore, starvation isn't such a remote threat for people who are on the edge of starvation anyway.
What evidence would get you to revise your thought that evolution via natural selection would work in such short time frames? (OK, now what about updating your evidence about starvation levels in the 1920s? Until 1929, almost no-one would have been starving, full employment was normal.)
I didn't use the word "evolution".
If servants who do stupid things starve, the only surviving servants will be the ones who don't do stupid things. This does not involve evolution; the servants are not passing the information down to another generation. It does however involve natural selection.
And there's no point in "updating evidence", unless you have some evidence that deals specifically with the case of lower class people who work as servants and routinely piss off their employers. Whether people in general starved is irrelevant.